Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Even today I see "Children's Bibles," which is rather amusing, considering the Bible is for adults,
not children. It's full of stories about sex, prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, polygamy, orgies, public orgies, drunkeness, divorce, murder, attempted murder, mass murder, war, genocide, human sacrifice, treason, trickery, torture, dismemberment, idolatry, sorcery, the slaughter of babies, backstabbing, incest, rape, gang-rapes until the woman is dead, child molestion, mutilation, theft and, worst of all, politics! If you want to understand the worst of human nature, there are few things more informative than the Bible.

I understand why throughout history the average person was not supposed to interpret the Bible. They don't have the brains or education to understand it. It's complex stuff. When you go that way you end up with Jimmy Swaggart and Elmer Gantry and all those crying televangelists begging for your money. And those are the good guys compared to what has happened in the past.

Right at the beginning, in Genesis, you get a story about how evil came into the world, when Eve is
targeted by the serpent (a symbol of envy and hate), then after falls for the promise of being like
God she cons the weak-willed Adam into eating of the fruit of the tree. Then Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. That scapegoating and denial of responsibility is what brings evil into the world and gets them booted straight out of the Garden of Eden.

(Incidentially, it wasn't even a serpent - it was a shining, talking, apparently upright serpent-like
being called a nachash.)

Since people in general - and certainly groups of people, which are always brainless - think other
people are the cause of their problems they have to get rid of them. And that has been the history of
the world. That's what scapegoating is: it's not my fault. It's yours.

Immediately after Adam and Eve you get the first murder, when Cain brains Abel. Why? Because of his
feelings of shame and humiliation and rejection - which is what causes almost all murders. It's an
attempt to get rid of the person on whom you blame your problems.

Then after that you get what is pretty much the first war, although completely one-sided, when
Dinah's brothers slaughter an entire tribe after one of the princes of that tribe seduces Dinah - and apparently she wanted to be seduced.

Three stories right at the beginning! And they explain so much of human nature that anyone who ignores those stories is making a very big mistake.

Then you get the story of Lot. As a child the only thing I remembered was Lot's wife being
turned into a pillar of salt, which always seemed to be a pretty severe punishment for looking back
one time.

But there is a lot more to the story than that.

Lot is a buffoon and clearly a chronic, brain-damaged alcoholic - at one time he ends up naked
and dead drunk in his tent. And since his children are grown when they find him in this state,
he appears to be in late 40s or early 50s.

Most of the alcoholics I've known were dead by that age.

Before his children find him naked, dead-drunk and passed out cold, there is one of the most
disturbing stories in the Bible.

Lot and his family, who live in Sodom (as in sodomy) receive two vistors that Lot is convinced
are angels, whom he thinks are going to give him all kinds of goodies.

The men of Sodom appear outside Lot's house and demand the two men be sent out because they
want to gang-rape them.

Lot, afraid of losing his angelic rewards, tells the men he will give them his two virgin
daughters. Here we have a buffoon and a narcissisic, selfish old drunk, afraid of offending what he
thinks are angels, telling the men they can gang-rape his two virgin daughters, if they will leave
his visitors alone.

I've read various rationalizations about why Lot did this. He was protecting his visitors from
molestation, and that offering your daughters to strangers was no big thing in those days.

I don't think so.

The culture in those days was shame-based, not guilt-based. Today it is still shame-based,
which is why you hear so many stories about women being murdered for bringing
"shame" on the family. How often does that happen in the West? Never.

Even Adam and Eve feel shame at being caught naked, not guilt. And Cain murders Abel out
of shame and feelings of humiliation. He never showed the slightest bit of guilt and in fact was
defiant.

Lot doesn't feel any guilt about offering his daughters to be gang-raped. But I'm sure he
would have been unbearably shamed if those man had raped his visitors and he had been helpless to
stop it.

Finally the potential rapists wander away.

Small children clearly feel shame before they feel guilt. That's why I think the story of the
Garden of Eden makes more sense if you consider Adam and Eve about three years old.

None of these stories are about guilt. They're all about shame. The shame of Adam and Eve.
The shame of Cain. The shame of Dinah's brothers. Lot's fear of being shamed.

Some shame, of course, is necessary. Guilt, too. But there is such a thing as too much.

In the West we are overwhelmingly a guilt-based culture. Other cultures are more shame-based, and
that is why there is so much discussion of shame in Genesis.

These two kinds of cultures are never going to mix successfully, which is one reason,
little-discussed, why multiculturalism will never work.

I was once standing in a grocery line behind some midget Asian guy. He had a shopping cart full
of soda pop cans, and it was clear he was buying them on sale to sell to black people in his
convenience store. The two check-out men were having trouble pricing all these cans (there were
about 100 of them), when the midget pipes up and bitterly claims the men were treating him "like a
criminal."

He was hallucating the whole thing. He thought they were trying to shame him. They were trying to
help him. I stood there and watched the whole thing.

So I spoke up and suggested the midget was in the wrong country and he should not speak like that
to those men, since they were only trying to help. I told him he was insulting me.

He looked at me and decided to shut up. He was what? 5'4"? Over seven inches shorter than me.

That's what happens in shame-based cultures. Often they hallucinate insults when they're not
there and then they go into a rage.

Mixing two such cultures to going to cause nothing but problems. It's right there in the Bible,
which is as anti-multicultural as can be. That's what much of the genocide is about - when incompatible cultures encounter one another.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

I'll explain why there will never be self-driving taxis and those who think software and computers and robots are going to take over the world are very confused.

Back when I owned a taxi I used to do what are called desegration routes. I took little black kids who had a school across the street to a white school out in the county. I usually had to get them there about 7:47 am and it was about a 20-minute ride. So I usually didn't get up until about 7.

One time I went to a 7-11 to get some pastries and milk and probably some of those cheap cigars I used to smoke. It was drizzling a bit.

As I got into my car I noticed an old man, with a small plastic bag in his hand, walking in the rain. I knew what was going on: he had walked to the convenience store to get something to eat and was walking home in the rain. He had to live maybe one or two blocks away

I pulled up next to him and told him I would give him a ride, no charge. He got into the car. They always got into the car.

I guess he was about 75. He told me, in a calm voice, that he remembered his address but could not remember how to get to his house, even though he had lived there 30 years. So he gave me his address and I took him home. He lived two blocks away.

No self-driving taxi, robot, is going to look at old man walking in the rain and realize he was in trouble. But a human could.

That was not the only time I did such things. Once I got some gas and the attendent pointed to an old lady on the street and said he believed she was in trouble. I told her I would take her home, no charge.

She told me her address and I realized she was walking in the opposite direction.

She lived about seven blocks away, and I took her home. She insisted on paying me and even let me in her house (this was very common). She gave me, if I remember correctly, a quarter, which amused me. Apparently she still thought it was 1935.

These things are why there will never be self-driving taxis. They can't put a wheelchair in the trunk and help an old lady with a bruised hip up three flights of stairs and carry groceries inside or tell when someone needs helps just by looking at them.

Monday, June 22, 2015

I've mentioned I owned a taxi for five years and the only problems I had were a few guys running off without paying. But I was never shot, stabbed, beaten or robbed. How?

Situational awareness.

I knew one driver, in his late 60's, who picked up a shabbily-dressed black man in a very ritzy area. I would have driven right off with my doors locked (they were always locked) because a shabbily-dressed black man has no legitimate business in such a high-priced area.

But my friend did pick him up. The passenger immediately put a .38 pistol against my friend's head and pulled the trigger, then jumped out and ran (he was caught and got something like 30 years).

The bullet went straight through my friend's head, hit nothing, and came out his cheek. He drove himself to the hospital, walked into the ER, and collapsed.

When I asked him if he suffered any long-term damage, he said no, except he had a plastic eardrum. He also knew the exact amount worker's comp paid for his surgery: $142,634.73 (I just made that up but he knew to the penny what he surgery cost, and it was over $100,000).

Every driver I knew who was shot was shot by a black male. One elderly black driver I knew was shot in the back of the head point-blank by a 15-year-old black kid armed with a .22 pistol (he also got 30 years).

Since the visual part of the brain is in the back, the bullet hit him there (and he told me it was still lodged there since the surgeons weren't going to cut on his brain to remove it).

He said the only side effect he had was that his eyes watered, which they were doing when he told me this story in the taxi office.

His mistake? He picked up a 15-year-old black kid.

I had exceptional situational awareness. In other words, I was paranoid. It served me well for five years.

Such situational awareness/paranoia is always a characteristic of a nulticultural society - and driving a taxi is as multicultural as you can get.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

I owned a taxi for five years, so I'm pretty much an expert on them. For a while I owned three and had two drivers. I also used to sell them.

Occasionally I'll get people who have no knowledge of the business telling me how to improve it. This always involves their misunderstanding of the free market.

Owning a taxi was just about the best job I ever had. I was an independent contractor and worked whatever hours and days I wanted. That meant a lot.

The biggest problem today is immigrants, who've collapsed wages. I would kick all of them straight out of the United States.

Owning a taxi used to be a middle-class job. Not anymore.

When I first started I met an older man named Al, who started driving in the '50s. He told me when he first started he thought, "Where has this job been all my life?" I knew what he meant. I had a blast.

The taxi companies, of course, were corrupt. All taxi companies are corrupt. It's the nature of the business. One owner I worked for avoided prison by ratting out his partner since they were the two biggest bookies in the city. His partner went to prison. He went free.

I get people telling me all taxis need to go completely free market. To a large degree, yes. But not totally. The free market is not some magic that works in all places and at all times.

In the city I worked there were airport taxi companies that were the only ones that could sit at the airport. Other taxis had to deadhead back to other places. It was very inefficient and wasted a lot of gas and time.

Finally lawsuits busted that open, so non-airport taxis can now sit at the airport. That's a good use of the free market.

Downtown at the big hotels was a different story. The taxis that sat there were called "dummies," because they had no radios and just sat in line at the hotels. This caused big problems.

Since the hotels generally had one to three places for taxis, other taxis would line up ten deep, taking metered parking places. On hot days the drivers would sit on sidewalks in chairs. There were fights and arguments. That's what a completely free market did.

Finally the cops, because of complaints from hotels and citizens, said, no more. Only taxis were allowed in the assigned places. One to three at every downtown hotel. So the others cruise and try to steap other taxi's rides (this is called "scooping").

The taxi business has been destroyed by immigrants. Again, it is no longer a middle-class job because of this, because of the collapse of wages. Just as bad, many immigrants are sexual perverts and harass the woman. I used to know a Russian who put a mirror in his car so he could look up women's dresses. And one Nigerian drove a woman around and wouldn't let her out of his car. Fortunately both got fired but should have never been hired in the first place. They shouldn't have been in the U.S. in the first place.

Busting taxi companies wide open is a good deal if you got rid of the immigrants.

The reason Uber and Lyft are doing so well is because those who call them know they are going to get an American driver and not some smelly psycho immigrant who can't speak English and gargles with garlic. (By the way, John Nash and his wife were killed in a wreck by an immigrant driver.)

I used to have a cellphone on me which was against the rules because you could get regular riders who would call you directly. Sometimes I cleared $100 a day just from them calling me.

If I had my way I would open up taxis completely to the free market - and it would work only because of advanced technology. Cell phones and computers. And I would kick every immigrant out of country.

I'm going to repeat the only way taxi companies can be busted wide open is because of advanced technology. Otherwise it would be just as it was in the past - corrupt companies using the government to pass laws to protect their turf and enrich the companies at the expense of the drivers.

This is what technology does - puts the inefficent, the stupid and the smelly out of business. It improves service.

it's the deluded who think open borders and immigrantion are free market. Wages go down and crime goes up. That's not "free market." That's the wealthy trying to enrich themelves at the expense of everyone else.

But there is always a way around these problems. There always will be.

Personally I'd love to see every large taxi company go out of business. They're only in business because of laws protecting them.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The word "monster" is related to the word "demonstrate." It means a warning of things to come.

To quote Wikipedia: "The root of 'monstrum' is 'monere'—which does not only mean to warn, but also to instruct, and forms the basis of the modern English demonstrate. Thus, the monster is also a sign or instruction. This benign interpretation was proposed by Saint Augustine, who did not see the monster as inherently evil, but as part of the natural design of the world, a kind-of deliberate category error."

I had know it for years, but really started thinking about it after Anders Breivik's rampage. What he did was a warning, not against Muslims (soon enough they will be swimming in terror back to their homelands) but against leftists destroying Norway. He took out the younger generation before they could grow up and finish destroying his country.

Now we have Dylann Roof, who shot a bunch of harmless black people instead of taking out gangbangers.

He is of course a monster - but what was he warning against? The coming race war, which has already arrived.

All monsters feel humiliated (watch Frankenstein sometime) and humiliation is often followed by revenge (Roof said something about all the white women being raped by blacks).

They are alienated, with no meaning or purpose or community to their lives. Lacking those things is one of the best ways to create a monster. Frankenstein, for example, is so popular because he is a benign monster who becomes alienated through rejection and humilation and so seeks revenge.

Just look at the first recorded murder - Cain humiliated by God's rejection of his sacrifice, so he blamed it on his brother and murdered him. Humiliation followed by revenge.

Breivik felt humiliated watching leftists destroying his country, so he took out the younger generation. Roof, too, obviously felt humiliated and helpless, so he took matters into his own hands.

Such monsters always feel justified in what they have done, because in their minds it's self-defense. They feel they are the ones who have been attacked.

Friday, June 19, 2015

I once spent a year in college working on a production line. We folded boxes, made displays out of the boxes, put product in the boxes, and then put them in other bigger boxes. It was boring busywork and paid mininum-wage.

I would have liked for machines to do the job, but years later when I learned about software and computers I realized there are some thing machines cannot do.

Some of these boxes were pretty complicated to fold and the displays even more so. None of the boxes were exactly identical; there was always some minor variation. I wondered what sort of machine could fold these complicated boxes. I just couldn't see it.

Some people, who don't understand software or computers, think machines can do everything. They can't.

Some jobs will never be automaticated. Unfortunately, it appears it's to going to be the real shit jobs that can't be automated, like that production line.

For that matter, the harder the job, the less it can be automated. Logging trees? Working on an oil rig? That's not going to happen.

The spergs who pass for economists, who don't realize economics doesn't stand alone by itself, are clueless. They swoon over McDonalds being automated but they never realized the customers might just go to another restaurant with workers there (what I see at McDonalds are a bunch of old retired guys and women socializing with each other).

It's amazing the number of old people I meet who can't do the simplest thing when it comes to automation. Do you really think they want to order on machines? Some will never figure them out.

When it comes to software, computers and machines, no one can tell the future. Predictions are just fantasy and often have nothing to do with reality.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

When I was a teenager only teenagers worked at fast-food places. Adults weren't hired (the phrase used was "overqualified," which is something I don't hear anymore).

Now adults work at these places and it's considered acceptable. In fact, the economy is so bad the last time I heard the average age of someone making minimum wage is 35 years old.

Since you can't live on that kind of money we now have all kinds of transfer payments: Earned Income, Section 8 housing, HUD, food cards.

Nothing good is going to come of all this.

It's been known for a long time that if you want to see what is going to happen to whites, look at blacks. Welfare and the lack of jobs has destroyed their culture and families. And now they're rioting and attacking people.

People think whites don't really riot, but look at history. Look up Matewan sometimes.

And it was all about money then, just as the problems today are about money.

This doesn't mystify me. After all, thousands of years ago there was written a famous comment about the love of money being the root of all evil. That didn't make much sense as a teenager but it sure does now.

In the long run I expect the U.S. to break up into autonomous sections. It's happening already. Many of the inner cities are no go and the wilderness is returning to much of Detroit.

I used to live in Albuquerque and it's pretty much been ethnically cleansed of blacks by "Hispanics." I used to know a middle-aged black women there and she told me some Hispanic women told her to her face, "We are going to get rid of you." I, on the other hand, never had a problem.

Liberals are nuts with their beliefs in multiculturalism.

And those who can't see the long-term effects of a bad economy are nuts, too.

Interesting times are coming. It's not even hard to see. All the races and ethnic groups living apart, a very small majority with more money than they know what to do with, a great many people livng on transfer payments and low-paying jobs.

Artists tend to be antennae for coming problems. Neal Stephenson, for one, is very good at writing about the break up of the country. An impoverished country with advanced technology. It's exactly what I predicted (and others) while forgetting I had read Stephenson.

So it appears we are heading toward a broken-apart country, with advanced technology verging on magic, with a vanishingly small number of extremely wealthy people, and everyone else impoverished economically.

There will still be a lot of drinking and drugs and watching 500 TV channels, though. While the smart ones work their technological magick with programming, nanotechnology and genetic engineering - which ultimately are the same thing.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

People are always strange because we're imperfect, although some people are a lot more imperfect than others. Things are always weird, too, because the whole world is fallen.

The trick is to analyze these things and minimize the strangeness and weirdness. (Personally, like the late Ray Bradbury, I just revel in the whole bizarre circus.)

Two weird and bizarre things going on right now is that we are stomping on the brake and accelator at the same time. But then, aren't we always?

Last time I checked, the economy has at least doubled since 1980. But that money is going to the rich, not everyone else. There are at least two reasons: when the government inflates the money suppy the rich are the first to get the money, so they can buy up everything. Then there is the fact corporations and the very rich pretty much own politicians, who pass laws enriching them at the expense of everyone else. Specifically the middle class, which is in trouble.

That's the stomping on the brake.

Pressing the accelator is what science and technology is doing (as far as I'm concerned, science that works immediately turns into technology).

There is some stange stuff going on. For one thing, automation, i.e, robots, are putting people out of work. Yet that automation makes prices drop. I can buy a brand-new car for about $9000, and someday I expect it to drop to $3000. Why buy a used car when brand-new cars cost that much?

Then there is genetic engineering. Will it someday come to the point where almost all diseases can be prevented for cured?

Here's an example: my cousin was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Stage 3. We thought he was going to die. Instead, one treatment wiped it out, although he had to go though six altogether (he told me, "I kept the hair on my head but everything else fell out, including on my balls").

So nearly everyone is getting poorer, thanks to our bloated, evil, exploiting government, yet at the same time we're getting richer and richer, thanks to science, technology and what free market we have left. The brake and the accelator at the same time.

Some claim all this ever-accelerating technology is going to take us to the Singularity, but what does that even mean? It's sounds like a bad science-fiction fantasy, and doesn't even make any sense to me. Skynet? Oh, please.

I am reminded of the movie Elysium, in which everyone was poverty-stricken but all diseases had been cured.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Historically, men supported women and women had the babies. Yet it's been believed for a long time that having babies and home and husband isn't enough for women. It's a lesser thing. It's inferior to moving into a man's world.

I find this bizarre. Many women now believe that just being a woman and fulfilling what traditionally has been women's roles isn't enough anymore. It's inferior to trying to be like a man.

Doesn't this mean that feminism is based on the belief that women are inferior? The weaker vessel?

Worse, since so many of them can't compete, there has to be Affirmative Action or the standards are lowered. That's not going to work.

And since they're can't compete at all in those dangerous, dirty jobs, there isn't any Affirmative Action or working in coal mines, steel mills and logging.

Bizarrely, now the standards are being lowered for the military and firemen. Honestly, is that not based on the belief that women are inferior, so they standards have to be lowered to basement level?

And what sort of utterly deluded woman believes she can carry an unconscious 200-pound man out of a burning building? Would see rather see him die than admit she's not fit for the job?

Friday, June 5, 2015

Yes, I know Futrelle is a nut, but even a nut can occasionally be right. A blind pig finding an acorn? A stopped clock occasionally being right?

The first time I ever heard someone call himself an "alpha" was the lowlife omega Ted Nugent, who consistently referred to himself as one long before there was an internet. The context in which he called himself one was during a race, in which he blew up his dune buggy and not only didn't win the race...he didn't even finish it. What an obnoxious moron.

And now we have the weirdo Roosh making what appear to be homosexualish comments about the Manosphere being his "seed." Sheesh. I called him for what he is years ago, along with Roissy and Vox Day.

Manosphere misogynists like to tell themselves fairy tales about women. Their favorite such tale, repeated endlessly, is one called “The Cock Carousel” – sometimes referred to in expanded form as the “Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel” or the “Bad Boy Cock Carousel.” (Hence that Rooster-riding gal you see in this blog’s header about half the time.)

Despite the different names, the story is always, monotonously, the same: In their late teens and twenties, when they’re at the height of their sexual appeal, women (or at least the overwhelming majority of them) have sex in rapid succession with an assortment of charismatic but unreliable alpha males and “bad boys” who make their vaginas (or just ‘ginas) tingle. Then, sometime in their mid-to-late twenties, these women “hit the wall,” with their so-called sexual market value (or SMV) dropping faster than Facebook’s stock price. As Roissy/Heartiste puts it, in his typically overheated prose:

So sad, so tragic, the inevitable slide into sexual worthlessness that accompanies women, the withering tick tock of the cosmic clock stripping their beauty in flayed bits of soulletting mignons like psychological ling chi. A sadistic thief in the night etching, billowing, draping and sagging a new affront to her most preciously guarded asset.

While many women try to pretend they’ve still “got it,” even at the ripe old age of thirty, they inevitably have to either get off or get thrown off the “cock carousel.” At this point the more savvy women glom onto some convenient “beta male” who, while somewhat lacking in sexual appeal, will at least be a good husband and provider for them – and in many cases the children they’ve had with alpha male seed. Those women who don’t accept the new reality are destined to end up alone and childless, surrounded by cats.

To borrow the phrase "South Park' used in its episodes about Scientology and Mormonism, this is what manosphere men actually believe. Not only that, but they claim that this fairy tale is based on real science.

So who are these mysterious alpha males that get the women so excited? As one guide to pickup artist (PUA) lingo puts it:

In animal hierarchies, the Alpha Male is the most dominant, and typically the physically strongest member of the group. For example, in wolf packs, the “alpha wolf” is the strongest member of the pack, and is the leader of the group. This position of leadership is often achieved by killing or defeating the previous Alpha Male in combat. Alpha wolves have first access to food as well as mating privileges with the females of the pack.

Social status among human social groups is less rigidly defined than in the animal kingdom, but there are some recognizable parallels. Although people don’t often engage in physical violence to achieve dominance, there are still recognizable leaders in different fields who have wide access to material resources and women.

Because the qualities of the Alpha Male (such as social dominance and leadership) are attractive to women, many PUAs have adopted these ideals as models of emulation. In fact, the term “alpha” has come be shorthand for the qualities of an attractive man, and it is a common refrain among PUAs to be “more alpha” or to “out alpha” competitors.

There’s a certain logic to all this. But unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science. The notion of Alpha dominance, as the definition above notes, came originally from studies of wolf packs. Even if we assume that wolf behavior is somehow a good model upon which to base our understanding of human romance – as manosphere men and evolutionary psychologists tend to do – the science behind the Alpha male wolf has now come completely undone, with many of those who promulgated the theory in the first place decades ago now explicitly repudiating it.

The problem, you see, is that the studies underlying the notion of the alpha male wolf, who aggressively asserts his dominance over beta males in order to rule the pack, were all based on observations of wolves in captivity. In the real world, wolf packs don’t work that way at all. Most wolf packs are basically wolf families, with a breeding pair and their pups. When male pups reach adulthood, they don’t fight their fathers for dominance — they go out and start their own families.

As noted wolf behavior expert L. David Mech, one of those who helped to establish and popularize the notion of the alpha wolf in the first place, explains on his website:

The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book “The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book’s info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.” In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the “dominant breeder” can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a “subordinate breeder.”

So the dominant male wolves – those whom manosphere dudes would still call the alphas – achieve this position not by being sexy badasses but simply by siring and taking responsibility for pups. To use the terminology in the manner of manosphere dudes, alphas become alphas by acting like betas. That’s right: alphas are betas. (For more of the details, see this paper by Mech; it’s in pdf form.)

Also, they’re wolves and not humans, but that’s a whole other kettle of anthropomorphized fish.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

The most influential writers in the Manosphere are either naïve or out-and-out liars.

Let's take the concept of the Alpha, as it pertains to women and sex. Supposedly "alphas" are experts at "Game," have the "Dark Triad" as part of their character, are irresistible to woman and have sex with many of them. (Apparently the True Believers think James Bond really exists.)

Oh, I supposed they exist if you're talking about George Clooney, who happens to be handsome and rich, but otherwise, no.

I've met guys who devoted their lives to seducing women. They screwed their lives up bigtime. All of them were drug addicts and even if they made a lot of money it flowed through their fingers because they were impulsive. None of their relationships with women ever worked out. They were liars and manipulators and saw the woman as things to give them narcissistic supply.

Every guy I've known who was truly promiscuous - when it was part of his character - was a drug addict/drunk, poor, and never had their relationships with women work out. Not one. A lot of them were sexual perverts.

The lower-class ones were in and out of prison and ended up dead from murder, alcoholism or drug overdoses.

The middle-class ones didn't end up dead, just with extremely damaged relationships. All of them were catastrophes with money. They just didn't have any common sense.

In other words, what the Manosphere calls "alphas" are really "omegas."

And that is what I mean about naiveté or out-and-out lying.

There is an old saying: "The poor are always with it." It means a poor character, not poor in money.

By the way, one of the most naïve things I've ever read is, "Things have changed." No, they haven't. Human nature doesn't change.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

One of my posters, Earl, linked to a site about how many depressed people are on Facebook. Why? Because they are comparing themselves to others and think the others have it better than they do.

Incidentally, I use Facebook for entertainment and have found it goofy. People post pictures of their meals. Lots of kittens and puppies, too, some of which are excruciatingly cute.

When people compare themselves to others and feel bad, that's because of envy, which is the only one of the Seven Deadly Sins that isn't any fun at all.

Envy is invidious comparison. That's what the "evil eye" is. You compare yourself to someone, are envious, and the envious get that look on their faces.

I know two women who are quite good-looking. I've asked both if other women were envious of them. Answer; yes, some were, and they had that look on their faces. Sometimes they tried to hurt these good-looking women in some way. Oftentimes by being extremely rude to them in public.

I've always been a low-envy person and didn't even feel it until I was 27, and that was in the content of a relationship with a women. Before that I didn't have a clue, even though I had been the object of other's envy, and that was always about a woman I had and they didn't.

I was mystified about why they were talking behind my back. But then, that's what envy does. No one says "I envy you." Instead they pull a Salieri on you (Salieri in the movie Amadeus was eaten alive with his envy of Mozart and stabbed him in the back every chance he could get).

These guys were comparing themselves to me and found themselves lacking. I had what they wanted and couldn't get.

The ancient Greeks noticed that the benign form of envy is admiration. And what you admire someone you want to emulate them. with envy you just want to tear them down.

There are entire ideologies based on the abolition of envy (which ain't gonna happen). Liberalism/leftism/socialism, for example.

My experience with these people is that they aren't very good-looking, not in the slightest. The men are weak-looking and the women are fat and ugly (Stalin had a pockmarked face, fused toes on one foot, and a withered arm).

Now of course the more envious Third Worlders we let into this country the worse things are going to get. They compare themselves to us, find themselves wanting, refuse to admit their envy, and so project their problems on us. Strangely, this is never talked about. But then, that's the problem with envy: hardly anyone wants to talk about it. And the envious sure as hell will never admit it.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Back in the late '80s I was a newspaper editor. My General Manager was an advertising major. One day I mentioned to him that I did not understand why McDonalds advertised when they were so well-known.

"What would you think if they stopped advertising?" he asked me, and I immediately answered, "I would think something was wrong with the company."

Advertising costs companies big money. I'm sure when cigarette advertising was banned from TV the tobacco companies were ecstatic. Hundreds of millions a year saved! Our brands locked in place! No competition!

When people fill out their information on Facebook they are giving free information to advertisers. We are the ones who should be paid. Either that or not give Facebook any information, which isn't going to happen.

There are survey sites on the Internet which pay people 50 cents to take a survey. Sometimes. People probably make $50 to $100 a year, which is nothing, and companies are getting all this information for basically nothing. They're saving tens of millions of dollars, if not a lot more.

The same with crowdsourcing, in which jobs are distributed among millions of people, who are paid a pittance. Nickels and dimes.

Technology makes things easier for us. It's an example of Cooper's Law: "All machines are amplifiers." It's why one man with a tractor takes the place of 500 slaves.

Most of a company's business comes from loyal, repeat customers, which is why I have gotten unpleasant, insulting workers fired when I pointed out the company just lost three loyal customers.

I recently bought one-half pound of Amora gourmet coffee off of the Internet for $1 (that's called a loss leader). It was good enough to make me a loyal customer. But on other sites, I am run around from one survey to another and never find what I clicked on the link to find. That's just dishonest, and places like that have lost me permanently.

When it comes to the Internet, I have little loyalty to businesses. They brought it on themselves.